MA S TER 

NEGA  TIVE 

NO.  92-80620-15 


MICROFILMED  1992 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the  ^ 

"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material . . . 

Columbia.  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


A  UTHOR : 


ANDERSON,  ANDREW 


TITLE: 


EI-READINGS  IN  THE 
MSS  OF  PLAUTUS 

PLACE: 

[CLEVELAND] 

DA  TE : 

[1 907] 


<* 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  # 


".« 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGET 


Restrictions  on  Use: ' 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


A( 

:quisitions     NYCG-PT 

FRN: 

m 

:    EL:     AU: 05 -27-92 

SNR: 

AlC:       00:05-27-92 

F  1  C  :  '? 

CON:??? 

FSl:? 

1LC:???V   11 :? 

COL: 

EML:      GEN:    BSE: 

BKS/PROD  Books       FOL/BIB   NYCG92~B35912 

Record  1  of  0  -  Record  added  today 

+ 

I0:NYCG92-835912  RTYP:a    ST:p 

CC:9668  BL!:afTi      DCF:?   C3C:?   MOD: 

CP:ohu     L:8rig     IHJ :?        GPC:?   BIO:? 

PC:s      PD:1907/  REP:?   CPI:? 

MMD:      OR:    POL:     DM:     RR: 

040     NNCj-cNNC 

luO  1   Anderson,  Andrew  R. 

245  10  Ei -Readings  in  the  hss  of  PlautuSrh[micr of  or m  ) . i cBv  Prof.  Andrew  R.  An 

drew. 
260     [Cleveland,  }:ci907  J. 
300     [73  I  Hr,  p. 
LDG     OR[U 
gu      05-27-92 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA   @    JB     IIB 

DATE     FILMED:_f_7^-'^3__,_^_. INITIALS___ _l/fj^€t— 

HLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  PUBLIcXtIONS.  INC  WOODBRIDGE.  CT 


r 


Association  for  information  and  image  iManagement 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100. 
Silver  Spring.  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

12        3        4         5 


1 1 1 


Inches 


I    I 


6 

lliml 


TTT 


7        8        9       10       11       12       13 

llll[llll[llllpllll|llll|l|J||||llllll|||||||||||||||N 


I    I    I 


Mill 


14       15    mm 

iiiliiiiliiiil 


TTT 


1.0 


I.I 


IS.6    mil  3.2 


163 


3.6 


1.25 

1.4 

2.5 
2.2 


2.0 


1.8 


1.6 


MflNUFRCTURED   TO   fillM   STRNDflRDS 
BY   nPPLIED   IMAGE.    INC. 


Extracted  from  the  Transactions  of  the  American  Philological 
Association,  Vol.  xxxvir,  1907. 


V 


V.  —  Ei'Readings  in  the  Mss  of  Plautus, 

By  Prof.  ANDREW  R.  ANDERSON, 
Princeton  University. 

By  the  term  "^/-readings  "  are  meant  those  that  give  ei  for 
the  classical  f,  as  deico  for  dico,  veivo  for  vivo  ;  or  for  the  clas- 
sical I,  as  airabeis  for  ciirabis.  There  are  a  few  instances 
also  where  the  ei  is  given  for  sounds  other  than  those 
mentioned,  but  they  are  less  typical,  and  hardly  need  to  be 
illustrated  by  examples  at  present. 

These  readings  have  been  treated  differently  by  different 

"^itors.     Ussing  consistently  rejects  the  ei  throughout  and 

gives   the   classical   orthography.      Almost    as   consistently 
Ritschl  in  the  triumvirate  edition  and  Goetz-Schoell  in  the 
editio  minor  read   the  ei  in  practically  every  place  where 
there  is  any  Ms  authority  for  it.     Leo  reads  the  ei  in  only  a 
very  few  isolated  instances,  but  does  not  read  it  in  scores  of 
other  instances  where  there  seems  to  be  equally  good  reason 
for  doing  so.      I  had  expected  that  Lindsay  in  his  Oxford 
edition  would  exercise  greater  discrimination  and  would  defi- 
nitely settle  the  matter,  as  his  note  prefixed  to  the  Argumentum 
in  his  larger  edition  of  the  Captivi  shows  that  he  understood 
perfectly  the  principles  involved.     (I  am  pleased  to  acknow- 
ledge that  it  was  chiefly  this  illuminating  note  which  prompted 
my  own  investigation.)     Unfortunately  he  did  not  uniformly 
apply  the  principles  that  he  himself  had  previously  stated 
with  such   clearness.       E.g.  in  the  first  eight  plays  he    has 
often  not  admitted  a  genuine  {i.e.  diphthongal)  ^/-reading  into 
his  text,  as  Ci.  62^,  where  P  reads  ei  for  the  imperative  of 
ire,  whereas  in  Ep.  600  on  the  testimony  of  A  he  has  accepted 
preimnni.     In  the  last  twelve  plays  he  generally  follows  the 
ei  where  the  Mss  give  it  for  an  original  diphthong,  but  not 
elsewhere.     Yet  in  Mcr.  282  ei.  et  P  has  been  rejected,  so 
also  in  Mer.  294  deiceres  A.     Nevertheless  in  Mer.  471  veivo 
A  has  been  admitted.     Evidently,  adhuc  sub  iiidice  lis  est. 


74 


Andrew  R.  Anderson, 


[1906 


-. 


Plautus  occupies  a  peculiarly  felicitous  position  for  an 
investigation  of  this  sort.  He  belongs  to  a  period  when  the 
rules  governing  the  use  of  ei  and  i  are  well-defined  and  cer- 
tain —  a  state  of  affairs  that  by  no  means  existed  for  Terence 
or  Lucilius.  Furthermore  there  is  in  his  Mss  abundant 
material  to  serve  as  a  basis  for  reasonably  sure  generali- 
zation, there  being  in  all  365  instances  of  the  ei  in  his 
Mss,  242  in  th^  ^mbrosianus  (A),  and  123  in  the  Palatini 
(BCDEJVT> 

The  purpose  of  this  investigation  will  be  to  test  these 
Ms  readings,  to  determine  which  of  them  are  false  and 
un-Plautine,  and  which  are  genuine  and  represent  Plautine 
orthography.  I  shall  try  also  to  determine  whether  these 
genuine  ^/-readings  go  back  in  direct  line  of  succession  to 
Plautus  himself,  or  whether  they  were  reintroduced  after  his 
text  had  been  more  or  less  thoroughly  modernized,  and  to 
treat  other  questions  germane  to  the  subject. 

The  fact  that  the  total  number  of  ^/-readings  in  our  Pala- 
tine Mss  for  all  the  plays  is  less  than  the  total  number  in  A 
for  only  a  portion  of  the  plays  at  first  occasions  surprise.  But 
the  comparison  is  not  a  just  one.  In  order  to  be  just  the 
comparison  ought  to  give  the  number  of  ^/-readings  in  that 
ancestor  of  all  our  P  Mss  that  was  contemporaneous  with  A. 
For  between  that  time  and  the  time  of  our  P  Mss  it  seems 
to  have  been  a  general  practice  with  copyists  to  change  ei  to  /, 
and  in  many  places  this  was  done  even  where  the  e  and  the  i 
belonged  to  different  syllables  and  corruptions  resulted  of 
which  illustrations  are  given  below :  — 


Am.      13 

369 

Cap,  940 

Ep.    626 
Men,  Arg.  2 

234 

735 
Mer,  840 

Mo.    650 


/  B*  «  B^  (dat.) 

si  BD  sed  Gruter 

uti  codd.  ut  ei  r 

ulmis  BJ  ulmeis  B^ 

Ei  e  corr.  post  ras.  B^  (dat.) 

ire  hi  B^CD^  ei  rei  Gruter 

inarrabo  B*  ei  narrabo  B^ 

Ubi  qui  d-  B,  Ubiquid  C,  Ubi  qui  (ex  que)  d-  D, 

Ubique  id  post  Scioppium  Gruter. 

quasi  CD  quas  ei  (ex  quasi)  B 


t 


Vol.  xxxvii.]      Ei-Readi7igs  in  the  Mss  of  Plautus, 


75 


Pe,     318 


846 

Poe,     714 

Ps,      242 

1107 

Ru,     562 

763 
Tru,  559 


fames  ift  eire  B  {inire)  CD^ 
fame  sine  ire  D^  {sineire)  T 
fame ;  sine  ire  leg. 
eolaphum  icit  BCD 
eolapho  me  icit  Acidalius 
philippi  BCDphilippei  Pylades 
placidis  BCD  placide  is  Camerarius 
habente  in  omen  B,  habenti  nomen  CD 
habenty  ei  nomen  leg. 
iectas-QQiy  EIECTAS  A 
pugnis  BCD  pug7ieis  A  Camerarius 
perditum  sit  BCD,  se  it  Camerarius 


The  fact  that  these  places  where  the  change  of  ei  to  i 
has  resulted  in  corruptions  are  so  numerous  shows  how 
general  the  practice  of  changing  ei  to  i  must  have  been,  and 
m  all  probability  if  we  had  the  ancestor  of  our  P  Mss  con- 
temporaneous with  A,  it  would  give  a  number  of  ^/-readings 
at  least  equal  to  that  given  by  A. 

In  deaHng  with  the  main  question  there  are  three  sources 
that  help  us  to  determine  the  usage  for  Plautus'  time :  — 

1.  Plautus  himself, 

2.  Inscriptions  of  Plautus'  time  or  earlier, 

3.  Comparative  grammar,  which  as  far  as  our  purpose   i^  con- 

cerned is   both  based  on   and   supplementary  to  the  two 
sources  already  mentioned. 

I.  Plautus  himself  has  fortunately  left  us  two  passages 
which  leave  little  room  for  doubt  that  he  distinguished 
between  the  diphthong  ei  and   the  monophthong   l\ 

1305 

Immo  edepol  una  littera  plus  sum  quam  medicus.    Gr.  Turn  tu 

Mendicus  es  ?     La.  Tetigisti  acu. 

The  one  letter  by  which  mendicus  exceeds  medicus  is  n. 
So  that  for  the  i  in  mendicus,  which  is  long,  Plautus  must 
have  used  not  ei  but  i.  Manifestly  it  would  be  hypercritical 
to  draw  any  distinctions  between  the  i  in  mendicus  and  any 
other  long  i  in  Plautus. 


Ru, 
La. 


y6 


Andrew  R.  Anderson, 


[1906 


.L. 


Trm,  262. 

AsT.  Comprirae  sis  eirara.     Tru.  Earn  {or  eram)  quidem  hercle 

tu,  quae  solita  's,  comprime, 
TnpudSns,  quae  per  ridiculum  rustico  suades  stuprum. 
AsT.   *  Eiram '  dixi ;  ut  excepisti,  dempsisti  unam  litteram. 

This  is  not  indeed  the  reading  of  the  Mss,  which  in  this 
passage  are  badly  corrupt,  but  eiram,  the  restoration  of  Gep- 
pert,  according  to  which  I  have  read  the  passage  above,  has 
won  the  acceptance  of  scholars.  It  makes  no  difference  for 
my  purpose  whether  we  read  earn  ( =  erajn,  mistress,  as 
though  Truculentus  had  understood  Astaphium  to  say  eraifi^ 
not  eiram\  or  whether  we  actually  read  eram.  According  to 
this  interpretation,  eira,  wrath,  would  have  one  letter  more 
than  eray  mistress,  and  would  at  this  time  have  been  spelled 
with  ei-.  Derivations  of  eira  which  do  not  recognize  an 
original  diphthong  for  the  first  syllable  do  not  disprove  this 
orthography,  but  are  rather  themselves  proved  wrong  by 
this  passage.  Cf.  Walde,  Lateinisches  etymologisches  II  or- 
terbuch,  s.v.,  **  Ira  .  .  .  wohl  zu  ai.  isanyati  *  treibt  an,'  isnati 


ds.,  isyati  *setzt  in  Bewegung,  erregt* 


mit  lat.  *eisa, 


eira  eigentlich  *  Erregung,  Erregtheit '  beriihrt  sich  am  nachs- 
ten  av.  aesma- *Zorn,'  gr.  olarpo^  *  Wut,'  olfxa  *  stiirmischer 
Angriff,  Andrang '  (wenn  aus  *ol(Tfia).  .  .  ." 

If  these  passages  from  Plautus  are  put  together,  it  may  be 
safely  concluded  that  the  orthography  of  our  poet  differen- 
tiated between  the  monophthong  i  and  ei,  which  originally 
had  been  and  probably  still  was  a  diphthong.  Cf .  Marx,  hidex 
Scholaruniy  Greifswald,  1891,  xviii. 

2.  Latin  inscriptions  up  to  and  including  the  time  of  Plau- 
tus confirm  the  distinction  just  given.  The  most  important 
inscription  differentiating  the  two  is  the  so-called  SC  de  Bae- 
chanalibus  {CIL.  I,  196)01  189  B.C.,  five  years  before  Plautus* 
death.  It  is  only  after  his  time  that  we  find  ei  used  for  the 
monophthong  l  as  well  as  for  the  originally  diphthongal  ei. 

3.  Comparative  grammar,  on  the  basis  of  the  two  sources 
already  presented,  together  with  evidence  gleaned  from  other 
sources,  has  determined  that  the  ei  of  the  third  century  B.C. 
must  have  one  of  the  following  pedigrees  :  — 


I 


V 


Vol.  xxxvii.]       EuReadings  in  the  Mss  of  Plautus,  yy 

a,  Indo-Germanic  ei,  as  in  deicere, 

b,  Indo-Germanic  ai  or  ^/ which,  standing  in  unaccented  syllables 

had  been  weakened  to  ^/as  in  the  relative  quei  <  quoi  2Jid.  the 
dative  singular  of  the  third  declension,  as  virtutei<  *viriuiai, 
€.    Indo-Germanic  eu>ou>  oi>ei,  as  in  leiber,  free. 
-      d   Analogy,  but  it  must  go  back  ultimately  to  one  of  the  afore- 
mentioned  pedigrees,  as  nobeis,  redieit. 

Accordingly,  in  discriminating  between  the  various  ^/-read- 
ings of  the  Plautine  Mss,  we  are  to  observe  the  following 
rule  :  if  any  of  the  readings  can  be  proved  to  come  directly  or 
analogically  from  any  of  the  previously  me7itio7ied  sources 
acknowledged  by  comparative  grammar,  it  may  be  defended  as 
representing  Plautine  orthography,  otherwise  it  cannot. 

Class  I. 

This  class  contains  those  that  may  be  defended  as  representing 
Plautine  orthography,  classified  according  to  origin. 
a.    From  Indo-Germanic  ei 

I.    In  the  root  of  the  verb  deicere  (dicere) 

A   {i.e.  from  the  Ambrosianus)  Men.  243  591 

Mer.  268  281  294  300  465  467  484  bis  512  bis  516   529 

554  760  763 
Poe.  474  1 23 1   1233 
P    {i.e.  in  the  Palatini  or  any  one  of  them) 
Ci.  603  Ps.  1323 

In  the  root  of  the  verb  eicere  Qcere) 
A   Mi.  205 

P   J//.  28?     Probably  in  Cap.  797  iecero  is  a  corruption  of 
eicero. 

In  the  root  of  the  verb  eire  {Ire) 

A    Ep.  79?  Afen.  513  Afer.  303  Mi.  1422 

Poe.  347  992?  Ps.  326  330  349   1 182 

Ru.  518  584  1018   Tru.  301? 
P   As.  108?  480?  486  676  Au.  458  694 

Ba.ii'j^}  1181?  Cas.  212   Ci.  62^   Cu.  487  491  611? 

Ep.  714  Men.  435  617  736  875  Afer.  282  689  747  749  bis 
787 

Mi.  521  812   1085  Mo.  336  693  852   969  Ps.  349   Tru. 
714? 


2. 


78 


Andrew  R,  Anderson. 


[1906 


4.  In  the  root  of  the  noun  leitus  (Jttus) 

Ru,  1019  A 

5.  In  leis  (Tis)  Mer.  281  A 

6.  In  catameitus  (catamltus)  Men.  144  P 

7.  In  suppeilo  (suppVd)  As.  815  P 

Leis,  catameitiiSy  suppeilo,  have  been  included  in  Class  I  only  by 
way  of  conservatism,  as  the  quality  of  the  ei  is  not  definitely 
known.  It  is  not  impossible  that  they  should  all  be  put  in 
Class  II. 

8.  In  the  voc.  sing.  masc.  mei  (nft) 
A   Mer.  503  525 

P   Men.  182  361   676  Mi.  1330  Ru.  867  (dat.?) 
Lindsay,  however,  LL.  427,  quoting  Charisius,  GL.  I,  159  K; 
I,  561  K  ;  Diomedes  GL.  I,  331  K  ;  Velius  Longus,  GL.  VII, 
7  7  K,  prefers  to  take  mi  from  mie,  thus  making  it  monoph- 
thongal. 

9.  In  the  dat.  sing,  mei  {ini) 

P   Ba,  942  Mo.  194  Ru.  867  (voc?) 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  distinguish  here  whether  the  form 
co!iies  from  *mei  or  *moi. 

In  the  adj.  meirus  (nfirus)  Ru.  593  A 

In  the  neg.  nei  (ni) 

P    Men.  849  Poe.  865  Ru.  811    7f/.  315 

In  the  root  of  the  verb  sino  in  the  perf.  subj.  act.  Tri,  521 
sciris  (for  seiris  /)  P 

13.   In  the  form  veis  (vis)  used  as  2d  sing.  pres.  indie,  act.  of  vo/o 
A   A/en.  266  Mer.  287  484  510  687  769  776 

Roe.  414  437  Rs.  47  324 
P    Cas.  964 

In  the  loc.  sing. 

A    HEIC     Mer.  307  468   773 

a.  498  £p.  567  Men.  238   239   241   460   1049 
Mer.  311   406  489  518  519  526  531  606  694 
784  Roe.  351   659  910  1 2 15  Ru.  1014 
Rp.  521  Mer.  266  785   786 
Rp.  545  e  Mer.  594 
NISEI    Ru.  1012 

PEREGREI   Mo.  gs7'     Charisius,  GL.  I,  212  K,  holds 
that  the  form  should  be  peregre. 


10. 
II. 

12. 


14 


SEI 


SEIC 
SEIN 


t 


jA. 


Vol.  xxxvii.]       Ei-Readings  in  the  Mss  of  Plautus.  79 

P  heic   Men.  375  Roe.  713 

sei      Au.  699?  a.  652?  Mer.  155?  Ps.  1324  1325   1334 

Ru.  950?  Tn.  595?  Tru.  40? 
quase  (for  quasei?)  St.  648 
septimei  Pe.  260 
utei  Pe.  476? 

b.   From  Indo-Germanic  oi 

1.  In  nom.  sing.  masc.  of  rel.  pron.  quei  {quX) 
A   Ep.  607  Men.  243  Roe.  469  993 

P    Men.  451  bis 

2.  In  nom.  plur.  masc.  of  2d  decl. 
A   Ba.  942?  Me7i.  259  260  573 

Mer.  262  263  bis  318  bis  778  Pe.  295  394 
Poe.  345  bis?  689  988  Ps.  1 1 79 
P    Cap.  in  Arg.  Acr.,  Men.  in  Arg.  Acr., 
Men.  18  bis  19  29  620  1082   1120 
Poe.  714?  Tru.  99   100 

3.  In  dat.  abl.  plu.  of  2d  decl. 

A   Ba.  927   Ep,  %^  Men.  202  258  289  290?  459  553 
Mer.  299  554   787  bis  790  bis  Mi.  13?  Pe.  293 
Poe.  407  579   1216  Ps.  343  415  y?/^.  764 

P    Cu.  612  J/^;/.  105  Mi.  165?  J/t7.  154  ^^,.  1033,  to  which 

should  be  added  the  analogical  fonns  nobeis,  vobeis,  found 
in 

A   Mer.  273   Poe.  402   643   664   678    1213    1216    121 7   1253 
1274   1277 

4.    In  the  root  of  the  verb  veiso  {vlso) 
A   Ru.  567 

c.   From  Indo-Germanic  ai 

1.  In  the  dat.  sing,  ending  of  3d  decl. 

A    Ep.  229  Men.  263  519  Re.  330  624 

P  ^<2.  1060?  O'.  133  Tru.  551,  but  perhaps  here  it  would  be 
better  to  follow  Bugge  and  read  muli  erei,  in  which  case 
this  instance  would  justly  be  transferred  to  Class  II. 

2.  Termination  of  pres.  pass.  inf. 

A   Mer.  769   777  778  Pe.  297?  Roe.  1301 

P   Mi.  884  1163?  Poe.  710?  Ru.  684   1012   1292 


So  Andrew  R.  Anderson.  [1906 

3.  Termination  of  imperative  pass.  pres.  2d  plur. 
A  Mer.  782 

P  Mo,  22 

4.  Dat.-abl.  plur.  of  ist  decl. 

A   Ep,  517  Men.  570  1133  bis  Mer.  479  bis 
Foe.  868  976?  Ru.  763  772 

5.  Endings  of  perf.  act. 

(a)  Indie,  ist  sing. 

A  Ba.  530?  Men.  535  591   1139  Mer.  391?  500 

P/?^.  386?  750?  1176?  1378 

Ru.  217  bis?  St.  497 
P   Am.  926?  As.  582?  Ci.  547  ^//.  1 131 

{b)  Indie.  2d  sing,  (ultima) 

A    Ci.  296?  Mer.  754? 

(/)  Indie.  3d  sing. 

A   Mer.  530  Foe.  1283? 

There  is  no  doubt  that  this  termination  was  always  long  in 
Plautus  exeept  where  the  law  of  breves  breviantes  operated. 
Yet  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  certain  that  it  was  also  diph- 
thongal. Cf.  CIL.  XIV,  4123  FHEFHAKED  (for  -eid?), 
and  CIL.  I,  32  DEDET  (for  -eit).  Yet  it  is  not  to  be  for- 
gotten that  a  more  reliable  inscription,  CIL.  I,  196,  gives 
fuit  and  censuit. 

{d)  Infinitive  (penultima) 

A  Mer.  269  PERIEIsse 

While  the  ei  may  here,  as  in  the  3d  sing.,  be  defended  on 
analogical  grounds,  cf.  CIL.  I,  196  ADIESE  ADIESENT 
ADIESET,  and  Sommer,  Handbuch  d.  lat.  Laut.  u.  Formen- 
lehre,  p.  628,  Anm.  2,  it  seems  to  have  been  confined  to 
flexions  of  the  verb  ire,  or  at  least  to  perfect  forms  in  which 
the  terminations  were  preceded  by  /.  Cf.  CIL,  I,  196 
COMVOVISE  and  similar  forms. 

d.   From  Indo-Germanic  eu  in  kiber  (Tiber),  free,  and  its  compounds. 
A   Foe.  ^20  1218  1240  Ru.  217 

[Total  in  A 182 

Class  I  j  Total  in  P      .     .     .     .     .       98 
I  Total  in  A  and  P     .     .     .     280 


Vol.  xxxvii.]       Ei'Readings  in  the  Mss  of  Plautus. 


81 


Mk 


Class  II. 

In  this  class  are  put  the  forms  in  which  ei  seems  to  be  used  for  a 
monophthong,  and  which  are  therefore  un-PIautine. 

1.  In  dil-  <  disl- 

A  Foe.  4g4  DEILIDAM? 
P   Ru.  820  deiligentia 

2.  In  -im-  <  -ism- 

A  £/>.  600  preiMUM 

3.  In  -IS  of  accus.  plur.  3d  decl.  /-stems  <  *'ins. 

A   Ci.  244  A/en.  219  231  237  Mer.  281  513  786 

Fe.  182  325  Fs.  140  St.  349  607  682   Tri.  236 
P   £/>.  447  Afo.  47  Ru.  409  583 

4.  Diphilus  P  Cas.  32  Mo.  1149? 

5.  filia  Foe.  1239  A 

Cf.  C/Z.  I,  54  FILEA 

32  FILIOS(nom.) 
187  Fl  bis 

Either  from  I.-G.  dhei  (hochstufe)  *  iactere^  which  appears  in 
Latin  femina,  felare,  and  which  in  filia  has  undergone  the 
change  of  'e{i)  to  i  through  the  influence  of  the  /  of  the 
following  syllable,  see  Walde,  s.v.,  or  perhaps  better  from 
I.-G.  dhi  (tiefstufe)  with  Buck,  AfF.  XVII,  270;  Solmsen, 
KZ.  XXXIV,  4  ;  Brugmann,  IF.  VI,  93,  3)  ;  also  Brugmann, 
Kurze  vergl.  Gram.  I,  p.  73. 

6.  miles  Foe.  1372?  A 

Cf.  CIL.  I,  6^  MILITARE  etc.;  Gr.  o-fuX-o?  and  its  com- 
pounds ;  Skt.  mildti.  Hardly  to  be  connected  with  Skt. 
midha,  *  praeda,'  and  Gr.  /aio-^os. 

7.  m'llle  St.  587  A 

Probably  to  be  derived  with  Sommer,  IF.  X,  216,  from  *sm't- 
gzhli,  * eine  Tausendheit'     So  very  nearly  Fay,  IF.  XI,  320. 

8.  propmo  St.  425  A ;  cf.  Gr.  TrpoTrtVu* 

9.  VIVO  and  its  derivatives 

A  Mer.  471  Foe.  1187  bis 

Cf.  CIL.  I,  33  VITA.     From  I.-G.  u 

10.    Suffixes  -Ico-  -~ino-  -wo-  -isco 
A    AMEICVS  Foe.  1213 
MORTICEINE/'.'.  283 


82 


Andrew  R.  Anderson. 


[1906 


Vol.  xxxvii.]       Ei-Rcadings  in  the  Mss  of  Plautus, 


83 


II. 


P  ame  (ici)  Cas.  435,  ameica  Ru,  351, 

quomq'  mei  sciam  (conquein<?/scam  ?)  Ci.  657 

Here  might  be  mentioned  also  the  spelling  of  the  Arg.  Acr.  of 
the  Captivi  (Capt^/vei). 

For  'Ino-  cf.  CIL,  I,  196  LATINI;  Bnigmann,  6^^rj.  II,  146 
and  148;   Lindsay,  LL.  230. 

For  '~tV0'  cf.  Brugmann,  Gdrs.  II,  128 ;   Lindsay,  LL.  322. 

For  isco  cf.  Sommer,  Handbuch  545.  Regarding  -/-  (?)  in  this 
suffix  cf.  Brugmann,  Gr.  Or?  294,  4). 

The  ~ico-  of  amicus  can  hardly  be  treated  as  in  a  different  cate- 
gory from  the  -tco-  of  mendtcus,  the  orthography  of  which 
Plautus  has  given  us  in  Ru.  305.  Both  words  seem  to  contain 
the  I.-G.  suffix  -ICO-,  cf.  Brugmann,  Gdrs.  II,  255  ;  Lindsay, 
LL.  337.  Festus  15,  6  M  :  Ab  antiquis  autem  ameci  et 
amecae  per  e  litteram  efferebantur.  Sommer,  Handbuch, 
p.  86,  has  followed  this.  But  Festus  is  not  reliable  in  the 
matter  of  ancient  orthography,  e.g.  Paulus  121,  i  M:  Loe- 
besum  et  loebertatem  antiqui  pro  liberum  et  libertatem, 
where  he  should  have  said  loiberum  et  ioibertatem. 

In  the  optative  suffix  -/- 

A    SEIS  Ep.  548?  668?  Mer.  550  552  777  779  Foe.  372 
VELEIS  J/^r.  775 

Cf.  CIL.  I,  196  POT! SIT,  i.e.  potis  sit,  and  Brugmann,  Kurze 
vergl.  Gram.  art.  73. 

-I-  of  4th  conj.     . 

A    SCEIS  Mer.  480  bis  519  522  Tri.  95 

SCEIN  Men.  530 

NESCEISi^^r.  789 
P  sceis?  Cu.  620 

poteirier?  As.  916 

momrei  Ru.  684 
Cf.  CIL.  I,  196  VENIRENT,  AVDITA 

-/  in  gen.  sing,  of  2d  decl. 

A   Mer.  784  Mi,  558  /^<f.  315  Poe.  1285 

P    Mo.  1080  Ru.  699 

Cf.  CIL.  I,  32  BARBATI 

196  LATINI,  VRBANI 

14.  -I  in  abl.  sing,  of  /-stems 
A   VEI  Mer.  319 

TEMPEREI  Men.  467  Ps.  ii8a 


12. 


13 


I 


'\ 


P   Ep.  51  vilei.  Mi.  11 08  navei 

Cf.  C7Z.  II,  5041  TVRRI 

I,  196  COVENTIONID 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  -ei  of  the  forms  vei,  navei,  vilei 
should  for  Plautus'  time  be  -t.  In  regard  to  the  form  tem- 
perei  there  comes  in  the  matter  of  chronology.  It  originated 
from  the  ablative  in  -i{d),  but  afterward  the  Romans  came 
to  think  that  ablatives  of  this  sort,  as  temperi,  rurt  were 
connected  with  locatives  of  the  2d  decl.,  e.g.  dom't,  belli,  in 
which  the  -'t  was  originally  diphthongal ;  cf.  Gr.  otKct,  cIkol, 
This  opinion  of  the  Romans  could  hardly  have  arisen  until  the 
ablative  had  lost  its  -d,  and  the  diphthongal  termination  of 
the  2d  decl.  locatives  had  been  monophthongized,  i.e,  after 
the  time  of  Plautus. 

15.  quln  =  Instrumental   sing,  of  interrogative   pronoun  +  nc  (cf. 

Brugmann,  IF.  IV,  226) 
A   Mer.  773  775 
P    Mi.  330  Mo.  329? 

16.  For  -/-  (from  thematic  vowel  -^-)  in  -bis  of  future  indie. 
A    IBEIS  Cas.  92 

CVRABEIS  J/^r.  526 

17.  For  't-  (from  thematic  vowel  -^-)  in  -is  of  future  perf.  indie. 
A   ORASSEIS^A  728 

REVORTEREIS  J/^;/.  256 
COMEDEREISi^^«.  521 
There  is  of  course  the  possibility  that  comederis  (after  faxo^  is 
subj.  perf.,  and  this  would  give  i  from  the  optative  suffix. 

1 8.  For  /  in  the  following  instances  — 
A   ANTEIDHACiRf.  620 

ANTEIDIBOA933 
OBEICIAM  Ru.  770 
P   condidicistei  s-  (condidicistis)  Z'^?^.  514  D 
conqu^/neiscam  ?  Ci.  657 
eisdem  (for  isdem  =  idem)  Am.  945  E 
meiseriis  Rti.  675 

19.  I  add  the  following  readings  where  the  ei  seems  to  have  arisen 

through  error,  generally  dittography  — 
A   ADDVCEI  (I  AM)  Pe.  439,  leg.  adduce 
IPSEI  (IVRE)  Mo.  713,  leg.  ipse 
AIEIIBAT5/.  391 


$4 


Andrew  R,  Anderson. 


P   deisidiam  Tri  650  (for  desidiam  CD)  B 


[1906 


Vol.  xxxvii.]       Ei'Readings  in  the  Mss  of  Plautiis, 


85 


r  Total  in  A 

I 


Class  II  \  Total  in  P  .    .    . 
i  Total  in  A  and  P  . 


60 
S5 


The  readings  of  Class  II  are  rtlanffesfly  un-Plaiifme.  While 
we  may  admit  that  a  few  of  them  are  due  to  errors  of  copy- 
ing, the  great  remainder  must  owe  their  origin  either  to  the 
first  Plautus  revival,  which  came  two  generations  after  the 
poet's  death,  when  the  diphthong  ei  had,  through  f ,  been  re- 
duced to  f,  and  in  consequence  at  times  the  symbol  ei  was 
used  for  the  original  monophthong  as  well ;  or  to  the  archa- 
istic  revival  which  came  in  the  age  of  the  Antonines.  The 
fact  that  there  are  less  readings  in  Class  II  than  in  Class  I 
does  not  invalidate  my  thesis;  for  all  readings  in  which  the 
ei  is  of  doubtful  origin  have  been  included  in  Class  I ;  e.g.  the 
voc.  sing.  masc.  mei  ( =  nii\  leis^  catameitus^  stippeilo.  Fur- 
thermore, an  inquiry  into  the  origin  of  all  the  J's  in  any  typi- 
cal passage  of  classical  Latin  of  considerable  length  would 
probably  show  those  of  diphthongal  origin  to  be  very  much 
in  the  majority,  in  fact,  not  far  from  the  ratio  3:  i,  which 
holds  for  the  ^'/-readings  in  the  Plautine  Mss. 

How,  now,  about  the  readings  of  Class  I,  the  diphthongal 
readings  ?  Do  they  go  back  in  direct  line  of  succession  to 
Plautus  himself,  or  were  they  reintroduced  in  later  antiquity, 
after  the  text  had  gone  through  a  more  or  less  thorough  mod- 
ernization }  A  comparison  of  readings  of  the  two  families  of 
Mss  will  show  the  latter  alternative  to  be  in  the  main  cor- 
rect, and  that  their  origin  in  the  text  of  Plautus  was  probably 
contemporaneous  with  that  of  the  false  ^/-readings.  For  the 
sake  of  illustration  let  us  suppose  that  they  do  not  go  back 
directly  to  Plautus  himself,  but  to  the  common  archetype  of 
all  our  Mss.  Then  we  ought  to  find  numerous  instances 
where  the  Ambrosianus  and  the  Palatini  give  the  same  ei- 
reading  for  the  same  place.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is 
only  one  such  instance  of  agreement  between  the  two  fami- 
lies, and  that  only  a  partial  one : 

Ps.  349  El  A,  I  BD,  Et  C. 


*^yh 


We  should  expect  more  instances  of  agreement,  even  if  we 
grant  what  is  only  the  truth,  that  the  ei  was  introduced  inde- 
pendently into  either  family.  Our  conclusion,  then,  must  be 
that  the  ei-readings  as  a  whole,  far  from  going  back  to  Plautus 
himself  do  not  go  back  even  to  the  common  archetype  of  our 
tzvo  families  of  Mss.  Were  I  an  editor  of  Plautus,  I  should 
not  admit  the  ei  except  in  the  one  lone  instance,  Tru.  262, 
where  eirain  is  punned  with  eram  and  the  number  of  letters 
of  the  two  words  compared.  My  investigation  has  made  me 
sceptical  of  the  Mss  in  this  regard,  and  I  have  little  more 
respect  for  them  as  far  as  the  ei  is  concerned  than  I  have  for 
the  early  editors  of  Plautus  in  modern  times,  who  sought  to 
give  to  their  text  an  antique  flavor  by  introducing  into  it  now 
and  then  an  ei  where,  as  can  be  proved  by  the  greater  philo- 
logical equipment  of  our  own  times,  Plautus  himself  could 
not  possibly  have  used  it. 

The  late  origin  of  the  ei  is  still  further  hinted  at  by  the 
fact  that  it  occurs  in  passages  which  either  were  not  written 
by  Plautus  at  all  or  which  have  undergone  retractatio.  Cf. 
As.  480,  Poe.  1372,  1378. 

Obviously  the  ^/-readings  are  not  a  phenomenon  of  suffi- 
cient persistence  and  hardness  that  we  may  on  the  basis  of 
them  reconstruct  the  history  of  the  Plautine  text  in  antiquity. 
Nothing  that  I  have  brought  up  could  either  disprove  the 
theory  of  Leo,  Forschmigcn,  Ch.  i,  that  the  form  of  our  text 
goes  back  no  farther  than  to  the  time  of  Valerius  Probus,  or 
confirm  the  theory  of  Lindsay,  Ancient  Editions  of  Plautus, 
which  favors  an  earlier  date. 

Let  me  now  set  forth  what  seems  to  me  the  most  reasonable 
theory  as  regards  the  history  of  the  ei.  If  we  had  the  plays 
in  the  orthography  which  Plautus  himself  used,  we  should 
find  ci  used  only  for  an  original  diphthong.  His  plays  were 
not  immediately  published,  but  for  the  two  generations  im- 
mediately following  his  death  they  remained  in  the  hands  of 
actors  (Leo,  PI.  Forsch.  p.  50).  When  at  last  they  were 
published,  the  diphthong  ei  had  been  reduced  to  f,  and  it  is 
likely  that  this  edition  contained  readings  giving  ei  not  only 
for  the  original  diphthong,  but  also  for  the  monophthong  u 


w 


S6 


Andrew  R.  Anderson, 


[1906 


As  the  Ciceronian  and  Augustan  ages  drew  near,  there  would 
be  a  very  strong  tendency  for  the  orthography  to  be  modern- 
ized, i.e.  in  practically  all  places  for  the  ei  to  be  changed  to  i. 
Then  came  the  first  century  of  our  era,  and  the  ancient  au- 
thors were  forgotten  (Suet,  de  Gramm.  24);  so  there  would 
be  no  occasion  for  reintroducing  the  ei  until  Plautine  studies 
were  renewed,  i.e.  in  general  in  the  age  of  the  Antonines. 
Then  the  archaizing  scholars  introduced  the  ei  not  only  for 
the  original  diphthong  ei,  but  also  for  the  monophthong  f, 
and  in  some  places  even  went  so  far  astray  as  to  substitute 
it  for  il 


